A student government official is currently under investigation for potentially violating conflict of interest rules.
Last week, the Daily Bruin reported that Undergraduate Students Association Council Financial Supports Commissioner Rustom Z. Birdie agreed to promote and advertise a job search site at UCLA, in exchange for financial compensation. He signed a contract that may have promised him 1,000 shares of the company Jobbook.com for his work.
Birdie said he has since cut ties with Jobbook.
Following the report of Birdie’s agreement, the council felt it was necessary to have the issue investigated and passed the matter off to the Judicial Board.
The Judicial Board, a group currently comprised of five students, is responsible for enforcing the Undergraduate Students Association constitution and bylaws.
Birdie was so convinced that he did not violate student government rules that the council members said he should personally file the petition for investigation, said USAC President Jasmine Hill.
“I still stand by what I did, and I know what the rules are. I’m looking forward to a third party to objectively make a ruling, and I will stand by the decision they make,” Birdie said.
On Feb. 18, Birdie filed the petition, urging the Judicial Board to investigate whether or not his actions concerning Jobbook were in violation of the USAC bylaw that states that he, as financial supports commissioner, has the right to “sponsor the programming of the Association as he deems appropriate.”
In the petition, Birdie describes his relations with Jobbook as personal ““ not in any way relating to his role as a USAC officer. However, when he contacted the Daily Bruin with the prospect on Feb. 8, he described Jobbook as a service his office was looking to provide.
A preliminary hearing between Birdie and the Judicial Board must take place within five business days of accepting the petition, according to Nikhil Sharma, chief justice of the board.
Sharma said the preliminary hearing will set the tone for the investigation; during the hearing, the board will identify what parts of the bylaws may have been violated. However, the board does not need a specific rule to investigate Birdie’s actions, Sharma added. Rather, the board may choose to examine the case as a whole.
The preliminary hearing will be closed, but a public hearing will take place a few days after the preliminary hearing. To aid in the investigation, Birdie may provide the Judicial Board with a suggested list of witnesses to interview. Within a week of receiving this list, a public hearing will occur. The hearing will take place over two days.
Birdie must also produce documentation that the board deems important to the investigation.
Two days prior to the preliminary hearing, Birdie must select a council member to represent him during the hearing. He may also elect to represent himself.
Sharma said the investigation will most likely be completed by the end of the quarter. At the end of the investigation, the Judicial Board can make specific suggestions to Birdie and the council, if deemed necessary.
Hill said she remains hopeful about the conclusion of the investigation. She added that the council is prepared, regardless of the outcome.
Hill said she does not believe this situation was indicative of a larger problem with inter-council communication and unity. She said the council is currently working on clearer conflict-of-interest language to insert in the bylaws to prevent events like this from occurring in the future.
“It would help to have clearer rules of do’s and don’ts for future reference,” Birdie said.